Summary

Portrait of William Burnham Woods William Burnham Woods Klein v. Insurance Company — Opinion of the Court

If they are not allowed to enforce this forfeiture they are deprived of the means which they have reserved by their contract of compelling the parties insured to meet their engagements. The provision, therefore, for the release of the company from liability on a failure of the insured to pay the premiums when due is of the very essence and substance of the contract of life insurance. To hold the company to its promise to pay the insurance, notwithstanding the default of the assured in making punctual payment of the premiums, is to destroy the very substance of the contract.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Burnham Woods William Burnham Woods Klein v. Insurance Company — Opinion of the Court

No compensation can be made a life insurance company for the general want of punctuality on the part of its patrons.
It was said in New York Life Insurance Co. v. Statham (supra) , that 'promptness of payment is essential in the business of life insurance. All the calculations of the insurance company are based on the hypothesis of prompt payments. They not only calculate on the receipt of premiums when due, but upon compounding interest upon them.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Burnham Woods William Burnham Woods Klein v. Insurance Company — Opinion of the Court

It agreed to pay Caroline Klein the insurance, provided she paid with punctuality the premiums. She was never incapacitated from making payment. The alleged fact that she had no knowledge of the existence and terms of the policy does not relieve her default. If the fact be true, her ignorance resulted from the neglect of her husband, who, in respect to this contract of insurance, was her agent, in not informing her about the insurance upon his life and the terms of the policy.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature